Re: [PATCH v2 15/45] target/hppa: Use umax in do_ibranch_priv

[Philippe Mathieu-Daudé]

On 13/5/24 15:23, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 5/13/24 13:18, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> > Hi Richard,
> >
> > On 13/5/24 09:46, Richard Henderson wrote:
> > > Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>
> > > ---
> > >   target/hppa/translate.c | 2 +-
> > >   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/target/hppa/translate.c b/target/hppa/translate.c
> > > index ae66068123..22935f4645 100644
> > > --- a/target/hppa/translate.c
> > > +++ b/target/hppa/translate.c
> > > @@ -1981,7 +1981,7 @@ static TCGv_i64 do_ibranch_priv(DisasContext 
> > > *ctx, TCGv_i64 offset)
> > >           dest = tcg_temp_new_i64();
> > >           tcg_gen_andi_i64(dest, offset, -4);
> > >           tcg_gen_ori_i64(dest, dest, ctx->privilege);
> > > -        tcg_gen_movcond_i64(TCG_COND_GTU, dest, dest, offset, dest, 
> > > offset);
> > > +        tcg_gen_umax_i64(dest, dest, offset);
> >
> > Isn't tcg_gen_umax_i64(dest, dest, offset) equal to:
> >
> >      tcg_gen_movcond_i64(TCG_COND_GEU, dest, dest, offset, dest, offset);
> >
> > ?
>
> Yes, but I think it is clearer to use max.

OK, maybe mention it in commit description to clear doubts?

> At some point we might add min/max opcodes to tcg too.

Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org>